Last Tuesday afternoon, October 17, I was sitting in my office at The Messenger talking to a subscriber who stopped by to discuss a potential story when my phone rang. I answered with a plan to tell the caller I was currently with a client but would take a message and get back to him later. Immediately, the caller told me he was in California and didn’t want a call back, but did want to make me aware of a “situation” occurring at the Courthouse. He said a couple had just been arrested for lawfully recording their transaction in the Circuit Court Clerk’s office.
WHAT??? I didn’t understand how someone in California would know about an incident occurring at the Meade County Courthouse before I did…and I am literally a 4-minute drive from there. Then the caller gave me a YouTube website address called San Joaquin Valley Transparency. The caller remarked that the couple had been livestreaming from the Circuit Court Clerk’s office and that the encounter with the clerks, and later with a deputy sheriff and bailiff, was viewable online until the time immediately after the arrest, and continued to be available as an audible file after the camera was either turned off or obscured. The caller concluded by mentioning the San Joaquin Valley Transparency website had picked up the livestream and was promoting the Official MissConduct site (run by 40-year-old Tiffany R. Napier) and the For Public Safety site (run by 46-year-old Christopher Reiter). Both Napier and Reiter are from Lanesville, Indiana, and was the couple arrested.
Over the past several days, I listened to the recordings, researched both the Official MissConduct and For Public Safety YouTube sites, and read Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 525.060, which was cited by Sheriff Phillip Wimpee as the reason for the arrests in his official press release posted online on October 19. I also interviewed two of the six people to whom I wanted to speak; Meade County Jailer J.J. Scarborough and Circuit Court Clerk Ellen F. Lindsey. The two of them graciously agreed to provide an interview while Sheriff Wimpee responded to my request for an interview with both him and Chief Deputy Ray Whited, the man responsible for the arrests, by saying that Meade County’s Attorney, Sydney Smith Durham, had advised him not to give interviews but to issue a press release instead. And on his For Public Safety website, Reiter also stated that neither Napier nor he are giving interviews now on the advice of their attorney.
I’ve spoken to several residents about what happened last Tuesday and have received almost the same response from everyone to whom I’ve spoken. Deputy Whited was in the wrong. Period. Quite frankly, most folks find the whole affair embarrassing for the county. And possibly quite expensive for the taxpayers since it appears Napier and Reiter could pursue legal action. And I must say I agree with that consensus.
Are Napier and Reiter blameless? Well, as far as I can tell, legally the couple had every right to film in a public building. Remember, this is an editorial and I do not pretend to know every facet of First Amendment law; however, based on my research, each and every one of us could turn on our phones or GoPros before we leave the house each morning and record or livestream and walk around filming our days and we would be mostly OK. There are places where people have a right to privacy, but the Meade County Circuit Court’s office is not one of those locations. As a matter of fact, there is a camera filming the comings-and-goings in that office already. Jailer Scarborough told me that the system set up in that area doesn’t record audio, but others have said it does include audio, so I’m not sure about that. But everyone is filmed.
So, what triggered the fear or discomfort that caused one of the employees to contact the Sheriff’s office? Based on what I saw and heard, I don’t understand why the women working there felt intimated. From every online indication, Napier and Reiter were not disruptive, merely insistent. That isn’t against the law. Neither is asking an employee’s name if you become frustrated with service, and at some point, one of the clerks advised another clerk to stop serving the couple.
When Deputy Whited walked into the Circuit Court Clerk’s office with Deputy Pam Knott, he asked the couple, “What can I help you with?” Reiter explained that he needed documentation from the clerks and that he had requested the name of a clerk who refused to help him so Napier and he could file a complaint. At that point, Deputy Whited commented that the reason the clerks probably didn’t want to help the couple was because they have “cameras all up in their faces.” Napier explained that they record all of their business to keep people accountable. Voices are all low and everything is civil up to this point. Deputy Whited asks one of the clerks what they’re doing for Reiter, and things go downhill fast.
From what I can hear, the clerk objects to the recording and the couple reminds everyone that it is legal for them to record. Then Deputy Whited and Reiter introduce themselves before the Deputy tells Reiter, “If you start to make them (the clerks) feel uncomfortable and stuff, I can tell you to leave. And if you refuse to leave, I’ll arrest you for disorderly conduct.” Reiter says, “You’re already threatening me with arrest?” To which Deputy Whited responded, “I don’t make threats.” Deputy Whited continues by telling Reiter to get his copies and leave, to which Reiter responds that he needs more than copies. He explains he’s waiting for Circuit Court Clerk Lindsey to get back to the office.
Reiter and Napier had been trying to meet with Lindsey since the previous week, according to Lindsey. In an interview with Lindsey the day after the arrest, she said Reiter needed information from back in the 1990s that she thought could only be found on video tape, but that she had been unable to meet with Reiter to discuss his request until Tuesday. Lindsey had her clerks ask him to wait until she could return to the office at around 4:15 p.m.
For the next minute or so, the situation escalated as both the Deputy and Reiter became more frustrated. Deputy Whited kept asking the couple to tell him what a clerk’s job entailed, repeating the question over and over. The couple continued to try to talk to the Deputy until Reiter asked, “Did you come in here to escalate the situation?” Deputy Whited replied that he was not there to escalate the situation. The couple said the Deputy should go away, and that’s when the arrest for disorderly conduct occurred.
The video went dead very shortly after that, but the audio kept running. And it was disturbing.
From my perspective, Deputy Whited did absolutely everything EXCEPT de-escalate the situation. What occurred seemed unprofessional on many levels. First, aren’t the clerks trained to know that recording interactions is not against the law? If not, why not? And the same question goes to Sheriff Wimpee. Aren’t your deputies trained to uphold First Amendment laws? In my mind, Deputy Whited should have gone to the Circuit Court Clerk’s office, seen that no one was being loud or disorderly, and spoken not to the couple but to the clerk, explaining the couple’s rights to record their transaction. And now people around the United States, as well as other countries, are viewing and listening to Deputy Whited arresting a couple for not agreeing to leave just because he didn’t like their attitudes. I think his actions were an embarrassment to the county. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the way people are acting as long as their actions aren’t illegal. Period.
In his press release, Sheriff Wimpee said, “The Meade County Sheriff’s Office received a call from the Meade County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office on October 17, 2023 requesting assistance. It was apparent that the ladies that work in the office were fearful of the situation. A Deputy immediately responded and was met with two individuals acting in a disorderly manner in violation of KRS 525.060. These individuals were not arrested because they were recording.”
Here is the legal definition of KRS 525.060, Disorderly conduct in the second degree. (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior; (b) Makes unreasonable noise; (c) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard, or other emergency; or (d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose. (2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
I saw/heard none of those actions based on the recording. At least until AFTER the couple was arrested. Napier and Reiter were both arrested for Disorderly Conduct in the 2nd Degree and Resisting Arrest. Their Citation goes on to say, “Received call from circuit clerks office that subject was recording clerks and clerks office and refused to leave. When approached by deputies, subject was told that once he got his copies he could leave. He and his girlfriend stated that they did not have leave Subjects were informed that they would be arrested for disorderly conduct if they did not stop causing a scene. Subjects started getting loud, disruptive, and refused to follow instruction. When deputy went to arrest subjects, they became loud, verbally abusive, and resisting deputies.” Uhmmm, really?
In fact, the ladies do not appear to be fearful. Reiter was polite when explaining his needs and Napier left the area when another customer came up to the counter for service. Were the ladies annoyed? Probably. But as I’ve stated, people shouldn’t go to jail because they annoy a public servant. Things only got really disorderly when Reiter was being cuffed.
Although they are not providing interviews, I did watch Reiter’s latest video update on his website For Public Safety. In it, he says, “The incident is definitely a big deal and it’s kind of becoming a big hubbub without me posting a (follow-up) video on the channel, which I’m totally not used to. I’m used to having to scream from the rooftops to get attention for anything, so that’s not happening in this case.”
I realize this editorial is quite long, but I feel passionate about First Amendment rights. Sometimes when I’m in public, I see someone I don’t know openly carrying a gun and I can feel frightened. But guess what? My fear means nothing because of the Second Amendment and a citizen’s rights to carry a firearm. If I called the Sheriff and ask for a deputy to go to Kroger’s (where there are cameras filming us as we shop, I might add) and ask someone to leave the store because someone was uncomfortable seeing a gun, do you think a deputy would come right over and ask the gun-toting citizen to leave or they would be arrested for disorderly conduct? As long as he or she isn’t a felon, my friends, their rights trump my discomfort.
I’m embarrassed for our county. And I hope that at the VERY LEAST, city and county employees will get more training on protecting First Amendment rights AND learning how to truly de-escalate emotional situations in the future.
